|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Imagine a setting where some people are sitting around a table, engaged in dialogue. In such a situation, I find that the fruitfulness of a conversation peaks at around three or four people, and starts a rapid descend after about six. Because of this, I find myself consciously and proactively avoiding social settings when such situations are all but mandated. As a person who greatly prefers critical discourse over gratuitously entertaining conversation, I seem to be an anomaly in society at large. Consequently, I've come to think that if inspiration is what I seek in dialogue, then I should choose my venue wisely. Doing otherwise is likely to send me to disappointment after disappointment. As mentioned earlier, I don't think that social settings with more than six people are nearly as intellectually productive as smaller groups. Even the maximum potential seems lower, as focus becomes inevitably dispersed among the participants and topics. To an ever increasingly degree, I consciously avoid such situations, driven by a desire for intellectual combat over pleasantries or even genuine entertainment. It would be a mistake to assert that such settings are of no use though. Large groups tend to foster great entertainment; it's just that most of the time, I'm not in the mood. I suppose the drawback is that I put myself at real risk in becoming a hermit, or in more modern terms, an antisocial. Perhaps there is a need for the social self and the true self. I imagine that those who are more clever and beguiling that I am, already operate by wearing different masks to different occasions. As I now realize that the broader population doesn't share the same modus operandi as mine, I am faced with a choice between picking up the tome or the jester's hat. This is most likely the underlying reason that I generally dislike large gatherings with people I don't know. Most of the time is spent on introductions rather than critical discussions. I lack the jester's hat. It's also most likely why I find myself increasingly dissuaded from using Japanese, as I find my linguistic limitations to be a shackle upon my mind. I doubt that shunning large swaths of social discourse in order to pursue thoughtfulness is a prudent choice. After all, most of the very people with whom we'd like to have such a critical discourse prefer to be in an uncritical social setting most of the time. Those who are unswayed by the charm of socialization are a unique beast. As for myself, it is a personal era of experimentation. Trial and error will oscillate me from one side to the other, eventually leading me to the supposedly correct doses of socialization and intellectual pursuit.
Crossposed from my main blog
  
|
gonna follow your blog 
|
|
|
You sir deserve a golf clap. Well written and thoughtful, nice blog.
|
A lot of this depends on what the direction your intellectualism is pointing you towards. If you intend to be intellectual in such capacity as it amuses you, then social interaction is only as useful as it is amusing (and of course, in as much as you as a person can sustain yourself without interaction). Some might decry this, but I feel that a person's talents should and can only really be utilized in the social realm if that's what they want. On the other hand, if you intend your talents to a social end, you're going to have to get to know the superficial stuff painfully well. Personally, I'm terrible at this right now, which is the main reason I don't get out with many people these days.
I tend to think of speaking and listening to talk about the weather, the food you're eating, etc to be a remarkable waste of livelihood, and have been unable to talk on such a level without betraying my lack of interest. My brother, who was of a similar state of mind at one point, seems to have moved towards acclimating to it and even using it to adeptly finagle a bit of meaning out of things. Different strokes, eh?
My advice: read a book. It's a great why to get inspired through conversations (albeit one way) with thinkers long dead without having to put up with the nitty gritty. Alternatively, start make a convention for people who like critical discussion and long periods of thought. If you do this, bring me, too.
|
I am the same way, but I generally don't take the time to state such thoughts, write so eloquently, and only know a few phrases in Japanese and still study kana.
Buuut I do feel that there is a time and place for this kind of thing, and you should never have to feel as if you are wearing a "mask". Of course, in large groups the amount of trivial conversation will increase, and personally, it bores the shit out of me and I usually do it to save face or relax. However, in smaller groups, it's much different. I really think that something like *wit and grace* are really just intelligence+confidence and practice. Even among a small group of people of whom you may not share the same interest/complexity of interest with, you can usually find something to generate an intellectual conversation simply by having a different opinion on something of mutual interest and having the confidence to make said conflict of interest a topic.
Of course, it's not always the time for such things( if you bring up abortion every time you are with a group of people they'll probably get sick of you pretty fast) but if it's never the time, then it's either a confidence issue or you are, in my opinion, with the wrong company. You should really be able to have both of these things in the right company, and in larger groups, I feel the people turn more into atmosphere or background noise, and that's really all there is to appreciate.
As far as entertainment vs critical thinking, that's just like trying to pick corn out of an apple tree (horrible metaphor, but I'm not spending too much time writing this). In the correct environment, with good people(people good for you), confidence, ect, you can have both. When you are with a smaller group of people, you are maybe a leg on a table; you support everyone and everyone needs to try to support you or the table tends to fail at being much of a table. In a crowd, you're a small man in a giant forest, and chopping a tree down (forcing a topic likely undesirable to others) doesn't do a whole lot to change that it is still a forest, and it's a waste of time to try. Just enjoy the environment if you can, or don't bother ending up their if you can.
Also, the whole bit about how dialogue aught to be inspiring; you should consider your emotions as a source of inspiration, rather than just a well discussed critical think tank. A social gathering that ends in positive feelings can leave you with a changed perspective on things just as much as an brilliant epiphany or new idea could, and both can lead to the other.
Hope that doesn't assume too much and some of it is at least useful. Also sorry for the horrible metaphors. Good luck talking to people :p
|
I think the problem with large groups of people is that instead of building upon an idea, people tend to just tell the same idea over and over again to people they don't remember telling it to before. I know a lot of people who just say the same thing to different people, which I think is extremely boring. I guess our culture sort of trains people to do this tho, especially those that work in any kind of public service who have to tell the same thing to dozens of people every day. But doing that for pleasure? It is the epitome of tedium.
Like you, I enjoy small groups. I particularly work well one on one and in groups of 3 or 4. As soon as it's more than that, I start hearing the repetitive discussions and lose all interest or desire to talk.
The best part about a one on one conversation is I can tell the person "Yeah, you've told me about that before" and the conversation can develop. With multiple people I sorta have to accept that maybe the other person hasn't heard the incredibly basic premise before.
|
|
|
I find 3 to be optimal. If you have more than that the conversation begins to spiral out of control and becomes diluted depending on the topic of course.
For instance, if I'm making a funny human observation total chaos could ensue.
Yes, we all wear different masks depending on the setting whether it be the environment, dress code, or the personalities we're with.
Unlike you I don't spend very much time on introductions. Instead I like to test everyone's wit to see if they're even worth engaging. If they don't tickle my fancy I won't waste much time on them.
If you aren't comfortable with the language that is a natural reaction. I've dated several exotic women and spent many hours with their families and extended families. A few of them would always ask me what they just said and in my own language I would be able to decipher a lot of the conversation. When would I speak? Usually at the end of the conversation as I listen intently. If I have a question, I ask.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 15 2012 03:19 Treehead wrote:
A lot of this depends on what the direction your intellectualism is pointing you towards. If you intend to be intellectual in such capacity as it amuses you, then social interaction is only as useful as it is amusing (and of course, in as much as you as a person can sustain yourself without interaction). Some might decry this, but I feel that a person's talents should and can only really be utilized in the social realm if that's what they want. On the other hand, if you intend your talents to a social end, you're going to have to get to know the superficial stuff painfully well. Personally, I'm terrible at this right now, which is the main reason I don't get out with many people these days.
Definitely something that conflicts me internally. As you say, it's a matter of personal choice and desire, as we can only prosper at what we do if that is what our heart intends. Fully agreed. I feel like I'm going to become increasingly gauche at "going out" as I think more and more about this and become conscious of my choices and desires, and what consequences they bring.
I tend to think of speaking and listening to talk about the weather, the food you're eating, etc to be a remarkable waste of livelihood, and have been unable to talk on such a level without betraying my lack of interest. My brother, who was of a similar state of mind at one point, seems to have moved towards acclimating to it and even using it to adeptly finagle a bit of meaning out of things. Different strokes, eh?
I think I'm currently in the phase in my oscillation where I am reducing my social interaction in order to think about how I want to move forward in such settings. I imagine I'll eventually oscillate back to above average exposure to socialization, but hopefully with a new set of tools to get me through the drudgery.
My advice: read a book. It's a great why to get inspired through conversations (albeit one way) with thinkers long dead without having to put up with the nitty gritty. Alternatively, start make a convention for people who like critical discussion and long periods of thought. If you do this, bring me, too.
Pretty hilarious, since yes, ever since I've started feeling strongly about this, I've read about 400 pages in the last, say, 10 days.
Conventions eh. Well, it's not unheard of in history right (weren't certain French societies or salons like this?)
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 15 2012 03:25 Vansetsu wrote:
I am the same way, but I generally don't take the time to state such thoughts, write so eloquently, and only know a few phrases in Japanese and still study kana.
Buuut I do feel that there is a time and place for this kind of thing, and you should never have to feel as if you are wearing a "mask". Of course, in large groups the amount of trivial conversation will increase, and personally, it bores the shit out of me and I usually do it to save face or relax. However, in smaller groups, it's much different. I really think that something like *wit and grace* are really just intelligence+confidence and practice. Even among a small group of people of whom you may not share the same interest/complexity of interest with, you can usually find something to generate an intellectual conversation simply by having a different opinion on something of mutual interest and having the confidence to make said conflict of interest a topic.
The part I bolded is such a golden comment, I couldn't help but highlight it.
I suppose in such a situation that you mention, it is all but imperative to become less obtrusive about the selfish projection of your own ideas and opinions.
Of course, it's not always the time for such things( if you bring up abortion every time you are with a group of people they'll probably get sick of you pretty fast) but if it's never the time, then it's either a confidence issue or you are, in my opinion, with the wrong company. You should really be able to have both of these things in the right company, and in larger groups, I feel the people turn more into atmosphere or background noise, and that's really all there is to appreciate.
Couldn't agree more with the bolded part.
The problem with larger groups is that yes, it is possible to form a smaller group within the whole and turn the rest into noise; however, it's still less efficient than if we had started with a small group in the first place. Too bad that's not always an option, I guess.
As far as entertainment vs critical thinking, that's just like trying to pick corn out of an apple tree (horrible metaphor, but I'm not spending too much time writing this). In the correct environment, with good people(people good for you), confidence, ect, you can have both. When you are with a smaller group of people, you are maybe a leg on a table; you support everyone and everyone needs to try to support you or the table tends to fail at being much of a table. In a crowd, you're a small man in a giant forest, and chopping a tree down (forcing a topic likely undesirable to others) doesn't do a whole lot to change that it is still a forest, and it's a waste of time to try. Just enjoy the environment if you can, or don't bother ending up their if you can.
Also, the whole bit about how dialogue aught to be inspiring; you should consider your emotions as a source of inspiration, rather than just a well discussed critical think tank. A social gathering that ends in positive feelings can leave you with a changed perspective on things just as much as an brilliant epiphany or new idea could, and both can lead to the other.
Hope that doesn't assume too much and some of it is at least useful. Also sorry for the horrible metaphors. Good luck talking to people :p
If you are someone who does in fact puts these thoughts into practice, I can confidently say that you are much more balanced and sophisticated person that myself.
Thanks for this post. I think it is more valuable than my own original post by a mile.
|
The truth is quite different. The fact is that the people aren't the problem, you are.
I don't live in what can be described as an intellectual center of Holland, but even I can have philosophical discussions when I go out, if I feel like it. Other times it can be politics, random, etc, etc.
Like I said, the truth is that you simply can't control a discussion. I used to be like that, always going along with what I perceived was the 'flow' of the conversation.
Someone dictates the topics of discussion, and they aren't magical and they aren't spawned from the nether. You can dictate topics for discussion, and if you have a little grace you can do it more subtley than "NOW WE TALK PHILOSOPHY YES?"
This pursuit of "intellectual" conversation partners will be a fruitless one. It isn't that these other people don't walk to talk about this stuff. The problem is that you can't control the conversation enough to inject your own topic points.
I state above that I used to be the same. I went along with the conversation, letting other people control it. Nod, shake, say one line, wait till I get asked something.
Like all problems in conversations, they are born from the single problem that people don't realize:
You don't listen.
I used to think that nobody liked the same stuff as me, why else would they talk about it so little? I used to think that talking to people was so annoying because I never knew what to say.
You need to start really listening to what people say. Listen to what they say and hook in on what they say. People tell you so much and give you so many different ways to proceed through a conversation, it is crazy.
So I really didn't like conversations, but now I love them. Once you get it, and I mean really get it, each person seems endlessly interesting, and that is because most people are. 2D character don't exist in the real world.
So in the end, not everyone will be a philosophy major, but you don't have to be to discuss philosopy. If you know a good bit of philosophy, you can even 'dumb' it down so they understand. If you know more, you have to lead that discussion. Instigate it, then lead it.
Telling yourself that people just don't feel the same or that it is a matter of numbers is an excuse. You might not see it as an excuse, but it is. It lets you see that it isn't you, but it is them. But the truth is that it is you.
It isn't a lot of fun to admit that you are the problem, but if you want to solve it and enrich your social life, then you need to admit that you are the problem and work towards fixing it. If you want those deep discussions, you need to work for it.
|
i can relate wholeheartedly, haji.
On March 15 2012 04:15 Chef wrote:
I think the problem with large groups of people is that instead of building upon an idea, people tend to just tell the same idea over and over again to people they don't remember telling it to before. I know a lot of people who just say the same thing to different people, which I think is extremely boring. I guess our culture sort of trains people to do this tho, especially those that work in any kind of public service who have to tell the same thing to dozens of people every day. But doing that for pleasure? It is the epitome of tedium.
Like you, I enjoy small groups. I particularly work well one on one and in groups of 3 or 4. As soon as it's more than that, I start hearing the repetitive discussions and lose all interest or desire to talk.
The best part about a one on one conversation is I can tell the person "Yeah, you've told me about that before" and the conversation can develop. With multiple people I sorta have to accept that maybe the other person hasn't heard the incredibly basic premise before.
pretty spot on. i once blurted out "oh i have to hear this story again?" in a group where i was the only person who had heard it before, causing the topic to immediately be dropped and prompted everyone around me to, rightfully so, treat me like the bad guy.
i just don't like hearing stories over and over again if they are just for the sake of making sure people know. if he had continued his story i'm sure that nobody would have asked anything further, no discussion, no genuine interest, just talking for the sake of avoiding silence.
the thing that drives me up the wall is people who prefer this type of social structure over one that may actually develop an understanding between the people you are talking to. when social meetings mass up to minimums of 8-12 at a time, it feels nearly impossible to avoid "clique"-ish behavior. there needs to be a reason for a group of that size to be gathering to avoid such a dilemma; some sort of common goal should be present other than just dicking around. there's power in numbers, but that power is wasted if everyone is just sitting around chit chatting.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:15 Chef wrote:
I think the problem with large groups of people is that instead of building upon an idea, people tend to just tell the same idea over and over again to people they don't remember telling it to before. I know a lot of people who just say the same thing to different people, which I think is extremely boring. I guess our culture sort of trains people to do this tho, especially those that work in any kind of public service who have to tell the same thing to dozens of people every day. But doing that for pleasure? It is the epitome of tedium.
Like you, I enjoy small groups. I particularly work well one on one and in groups of 3 or 4. As soon as it's more than that, I start hearing the repetitive discussions and lose all interest or desire to talk.
The best part about a one on one conversation is I can tell the person "Yeah, you've told me about that before" and the conversation can develop. With multiple people I sorta have to accept that maybe the other person hasn't heard the incredibly basic premise before.
On a related note, in a big table of people, topics are rarely dug deeper, and the conversation subject instead bounces around from one to another. This isn't all that bad if the participants are deft, but typically the result is lackluster.
On March 16 2012 01:12 StarStruck wrote:
Unlike you I don't spend very much time on introductions. Instead I like to test everyone's wit to see if they're even worth engaging. If they don't tickle my fancy I won't waste much time on them.
Any concrete examples you'd be willing to share?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
